37
submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by deathtoreddit@lemmygrad.ml to c/askchapo@hexbear.net

cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/3190259

To me they're like mere servants of the State, like Lenin talked about in "2. What is to Replace the Smashed State Machine?" in his writing "The State and Revolution"

Under Capitalism, they are its privileged knights that try to deflect and control, if not defend directly its image as "the only option", who have their incentive in doing so, with their class status stake being in their duty to shepherd the means of production and its resulting benefits

However, they don't own the means of production, as they merely manage it for the landholding, industrialist, and financier capitalists

On the other hand, under Socialism, while its privileges will be probably be done away, the PM class on its own would innovated upon, for their new duty of overseeing, managing, and reporting the collectivized cooperatives and state-owned enterprises..

Until the final stage of Communism arrives, I think they're pretty handy

I say this, because I hear such disgusted sentiment in Hexbear against them

Note: I know a bit about the bazingo techbro culture that the PMC is associated with, please don't criticize them solely on those vibes...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] AssortedBiscuits@hexbear.net 15 points 8 months ago

I don't find categorizing certain strata of the working class for the sake of categorization to be meaningful. The ultimate point of distinguishing different strata is to provide a general guideline of prioritizing which strata would be more receptive towards agiprop and should be a prime target for being organized. With this in mind, it should be clear that workers earning minimum wage or less would be more receptive towards building worker power through worker organization than a bunch of overpaid clerical workers all other things being equal. However, to say that the so-called PMC (really labor aristocrats) are inherently reactionary is to say that all forms of labor aristocrat organization must be dismantled because reactionaries should be deprived of political power, which comes out of organization. In other words, to say labor aristocrats are inherently reactionary is to say that a software dev union should be treated in the exact same way as a pig union or a Pinkerton branch or an oil cartel or the MIC, which would be an absolutely wild thing to say. You definitely could have a hypothetical software dev union that proves itself to be reactionary to the point where the Pinkertons beating the shit out of those union members are the lesser of two evil, but as a general rule? Of course not.

this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2024
37 points (100.0% liked)

askchapo

22692 readers
150 users here now

Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.

Rules:

  1. Posts must ask a question.

  2. If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.

  3. Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.

  4. Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS